tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Selecting a C++ compiler

Jonathan Perkin <> writes:

> * On 2017-10-11 at 01:34 BST, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Or to fail hard if c++11 is in USE_LANGUAGES and < 5.1?
> Not < 5.1, I've been very happily using 4.9 for our SmartOS builds for
> a long time with no obvious issues, and this would screw me over.

I don't have any problem with considering 4.9 good enough, with the
notion that packages with C++11 that don't work with 4.9 will have
GCC_REQD=5.1, and thus fail non-mysteriously.

> However, I think I'm of the opinion that we should just fail hard if
> an insufficient compiler is detected.  If compiler/ has taught
> me anything it's that it is vastly over-complicated and a nightmare to
> maintain.  Adding another layer of complexity and magic on top is just
> going to make things worse.

I think pretty much everyone is coming around to that view and we are
now debating what the defaults should be.  Does anybody disagree?

> I'd prefer we simply abort, tell the user to choose a decent compiler
> for all C++ packages, then let them sort things out based on those
> requirements and any local preferences they may have.

Agreed - that is basically what my recent complicated note intends.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index